Only check the own predicates of associated types when confirming
projection candidates.
Also consider implied bounds when comparing trait and impl methods.
Normalizing `<dyn Iterator<Item = ()> as Iterator>::Item` no longer
requires selecting `dyn Iterator<Item = ()>: Iterator`. This was
previously worked around by using a special type-folder to normalize
things.
Bounds of the form `type Future: Future<Result=Self::Result>` exist in
some ecosystem crates. To validate these bounds for trait objects we
need to normalize `Self::Result` in a way that doesn't cause a cycle.
Replace some once(x).chain(once(y)) with [x, y] IntoIter
Now that we have by-value array iterators that are [already used](25c8c53dd9/compiler/rustc_hir/src/def.rs (L305-L307))...
For example,
```diff
- once(self.type_ns).chain(once(self.value_ns)).chain(once(self.macro_ns)).filter_map(|it| it)
+ IntoIter::new([self.type_ns, self.value_ns, self.macro_ns]).filter_map(|it| it)
```
Remove trait_selection error message in specific case
In the case that a trait is not implemented for an ADT with type errors, cancel the error.
Fixes#75627
const evaluatable: improve `TooGeneric` handling
Instead of emitting an error in `fulfill`, we now correctly stall on inference variables.
As `const_eval_resolve` returns `ErrorHandled::TooGeneric` when encountering generic parameters on which
we actually do want to error, we check for inference variables and eagerly emit an error if they don't exist, returning `ErrorHandled::Reported` instead.
Also contains a small bugfix for `ConstEquate` where we previously only stalled on type variables. This is probably a leftover from
when we did not yet support stalling on const inference variables.
r? @oli-obk cc @varkor @eddyb
perf: move cold path of `process_obligations` into a separate function
cc #76575
This probably won't matter too much in the long run once #69218 is merged so we may not want to merge this.
r? `@ecstatic-morse`
emit errors during AbstractConst building
There changes are currently still untested, so I don't expect this to pass CI 😆
It seems to me like this is the direction we want to go in, though we didn't have too much of a discussion about this.
r? @oli-obk
